Insurable interest: Sales of goods: UCC § 2-501

Insurable interest: Sales of goods: UCC § 2-501:

Insurable Interest in Goods; Manner of Identification of Goods.

(1) The buyer obtains a special property and an insurable interest in goods by identification of existing goods as goods to which the contract refers even though the goods so identified are non-conforming and he has an option to return or reject them. Such identification can be made at any time and in any manner explicitly agreed to by the parties. In the absence of explicit agreement identification occurs

(a) when the contract is made if it is for the sale of goods already existing and identified;

(b) if the contract is for the sale of future goods other than those described in paragraph (c), when goods are shipped, marked or otherwise designated by the seller as goods to which the contract refers;

(c) when the crops are planted or otherwise become growing crops or the young are conceived if the contract is for the sale of unborn young to be born within twelve months after contracting or for the sale of crops to be harvested within twelve months or the next normal harvest season after contracting whichever is longer.

(2) The seller retains an insurable interest in goods so long as title to or any security interest in the goods remains in him and where the identification is by the seller alone he may until default or insolvency or notification to the buyer that the identification is final substitute other goods for those identified.

(3) Nothing in this section impairs any insurable interest recognized under any other statute or rule of law.

Le contrat de vente portant sur des "goods" n'est pas régi par la Common law, mais par l'UCC. La Section 2-501 définit la notion d'intérêt assurable. La disposition est importante en cas de transport de la chose vendue.

Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., Docket 15-1189

Patent exhaustion doctrine: International exhaustion (patent): First sale doctrine: License: Common law: Fee simple:

When a patentee sells one of its products, however, the patentee can no longer control that item through the patent laws—its patent rights are said to “exhaust.” The purchaser and all subsequent owners are free to use or resell the product just like any other item of personal property, without fear of an infringement lawsuit.

Two questions about the scope of the patent exhaustion doctrine: First, whether a patentee that sells an item under an express restriction on the purchas­er’s right to reuse or resell the product may enforce that restriction through an infringement lawsuit. And second, whether a patentee exhausts its patent rights by selling its product outside the United States, where American patent laws do not apply. Answer:  a patentee’s decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent rights in that item, regardless of any restrictions the patentee purports to impose or the location of the sale.

First up are the Return Program cartridges that Lexmark sold in the United States. We conclude that Lexmark exhausted its patent rights in these cartridges the moment it sold them. The single-use/no-resale re­strictions in Lexmark’s contracts with customers may have been clear and enforceable under contract law, but they do not entitle Lexmark to retain patent rights in an item that it has elected to sell.

For over 160 years, the doctrine of patent exhaustion has imposed a limit on that right to exclude. See Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How. 539 (1853). The limit functions automatically: When a patentee chooses to sell an item, that product “is no longer within the limits of the monopoly” and instead becomes the “private, individual property” of the purchaser, with the rights and benefits that come along with owner­ship. Id., at 549–550. A patentee is free to set the price and negotiate contracts with purchasers, but may not, “by virtue of his patent, control the use or disposition” of the product after ownership passes to the purchaser. United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U. S. 241, 250 (1942). The sale “terminates all patent rights to that item.” Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U. S. 617, 625 (2008).

This well-established exhaustion rule marks the point where patent rights yield to the common law principle against restraints on alienation. The Patent Act “pro­motes the progress of science and the useful arts by granting to inventors a limited monopoly” that allows them to “secure the financial rewards” for their inventions. Univis, 316 U. S., at 250. But once a patentee sells an item, it has “enjoyed all the rights secured” by that limited monopoly. Keeler v. Standard Folding Bed Co., 157 U. S. 659, 661 (1895). Because “the purpose of the patent law is fulfilled . . . when the patentee has received his reward for the use of his invention,” that law furnishes “no basis for restraining the use and enjoyment of the thing sold.” Univis, 316 U. S., at 251.

We have explained in the context of copyright law that exhaustion has “an impeccable historic pedigree,” tracing its lineage back to the “common law’s refusal to permit restraints on the alienation of chattels.” Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U. S. 519, 538 (2013). As Lord Coke put it in the 17th century, if an owner restricts the resale or use of an item after selling it, that restriction “is voide, because . . . it is against Trade and Traffique, and bargaining and contracting betweene man and man.” E. Coke, Institutes of the Laws of England §360, p. 223 (1628); see J. Gray, Restraints on the Alienation of Prop­erty §27, p. 18 (2d ed. 1895) (“A condition or conditional limitation on alienation attached to a transfer of the entire interest in personalty is as void as if attached to a fee simple in land”).

Lexmark cannot bring a patent infringement suit against Impression Products to enforce the single-use/no-resale provision accompanying its Return Program cartridges. Once sold, the Return Program cartridges passed outside of the patent monopoly, and whatever rights Lexmark retained are a matter of the contracts with its purchasers, not the patent law.

In sum, patent exhaustion is uniform and automatic. Once a patentee decides to sell—whether on its own or through a licensee—that sale exhausts its patent rights, regardless of any post-sale restrictions the patentee pur­ports to impose, either directly or through a license.

(…) What helped tip the scales for global exhaustion was the fact that the first sale doctrine originated in “the common law’s refusal to permit restraints on the aliena­tion of chattels.” Id., at 538. That “common-law doctrine makes no geographical distinctions.” Id., at 539. The lack of any textual basis for distinguishing between domestic and international sales meant that “a straightforward application” of the first sale doctrine required the conclu­sion that it applies overseas. Id., at 540.

Applying patent exhaustion to foreign sales is just as straightforward. Patent exhaustion, too, has its roots in the antipathy toward restraints on alienation, and nothing in the text or history of the Patent Act shows that Congress intended to confine that borderless common law principle to domestic sales. In fact, Congress has not altered patent exhaustion at all; it remains an unwritten limit on the scope of the patentee’s monopoly. See Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Solimino, 501 U. S. 104, 108 (1991) (“Where a common-law principle is well established, . . . courts may take it as given that Congress has legislated with an expectation that the principle will apply except when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident”).

(…) Allowing patent rights to stick remora-like to that item as it flows through the market would violate the principle against restraints on aliena­tion. Exhaustion does not depend on whether the patentee receives a premium for selling in the United States, or the type of rights that buyers expect to receive. As a result, restrictions and location are irrelevant; what mat­ters is the patentee’s decision to make a sale.

Secondary sources: E. Coke, Institutes of the Laws of England §360, p. 223 (1628); J. Gray, Restraints on the Alienation of Prop­erty §27, p. 18 (2d ed. 1895); M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright §17.02, p. 17–26 (2017).

(U.S.S.C., May 30, 2017, Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., Docket 15-1189, C.J. Roberts).

La protection conférée par le brevet cesse dès que la chose est vendue à un tiers, soit dès le transfert de propriété. Que la vente soit interne ou internationale ne change rien. Un contrat de licence n'est pas l'équivalent d'une vente. Mais le titulaire peut vendre par lui-même ou par l'intermédiaire d'un contrat de licence avec le même effet : ces types de vente mettent également fin à la protection.

Si le titulaire du brevet vend la chose en restreignant contractuellement le droit de l'acheteur de la revendre, ce titulaire peut-il requérir le respect de cette restriction par une action en violation du brevet ? La réponse est négative, seule la voie contractuelle est à disposition à cet égard.

C'est qu'en effet, le droit des brevets confère un monopole limité pour permettre au titulaire de bénéficier de la récompense financière qu'il mérite, promouvant ainsi l'innovation. Mais dès que le titulaire vend le produit de son invention, il est réputé avoir bénéficié des droits découlant du monopole limité. De la sorte, le but du droit des brevets est atteint quand le titulaire a reçu sa rémunération pour l'usage de la chose. Ainsi, la loi sur les brevets ne saurait servir à restreindre l'usage et la jouissance de la chose vendue.

La cessation de la protection conférée par le brevet en cas de transfert de propriété de la chose trouve sa source dans la Common law, qui ne permet pas de restreindre les droits de l'acquéreur. La Common law ne distingue pas suivant que la vente soit interne ou internationale. Ni l'interprétation littérale ni l'interprétation historique de la loi fédérale sur les brevets ne démontre d'intention du Congrès d'altérer le contenu de ces principes de Common law. La cessation de la protection telle que décrite demeure une limite non écrite au monopole découlant du brevet. Quand un principe de la Common law est bien établi, les Tribunaux peuvent tenir pour acquis que le Congrès a légiféré avec pour but l'application du principe, sauf indication légale contraire évidente.

Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, Docket 16-254

Service abroad of documents: Hague Service Convention: Jurisdiction:

This case concerns the scope of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, Nov. 15, 1965 (Hague Service Convention), 20 U. S. T. 361, T. I. A. S. No. 6638. The purpose of that multilateral treaty is to simplify, standardize, and generally improve the process of serving documents abroad. Preamble, ibid.; see Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U. S. 694, 698 (1988). To that end, the Hague Service Convention specifies certain approved methods of service and “pre-empts inconsistent methods of service” wherever it applies. Id., at 699. Today we address a question that has divided the lower courts: whether the Convention prohibits service by mail. We hold that it does not.

In 2013, Water Splash sued Menon in state court in Texas (…) Because Menon resided in Canada, Water Splash sought and obtained permission to effect service by mail. After Menon declined to answer or otherwise enter an appearance, the trial court issued a default judgment in favor of Water Splash. Menon moved to set aside the judgment on the ground that she had not been properly served, but the trial court denied the motion.

((…) Service of process (which we have defined as “a formal delivery of documents that is legally sufficient to charge the defendant with notice of a pending action”).

(…) Article 10 permits direct service by mail . . . unless the receiving state objects to such service.

Dept. of State, Legal Considerations: International Judicial Assistance: Service of Process (stating that “service by registered . . . mail . . . is an option in many countries in the world,” but that it “should . . . not be used in the countries party to the Hague Service Convention that objected to the method described in Article 10(a) (postal channels)”), online at https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legalconsiderations/judicial/service-of-process.html (all Internet materials as last visited May 19, 2017).

In short, the traditional tools of treaty interpretation unmistakably demonstrate that Article 10(a) encompasses service by mail. To be clear, this does not mean that the Convention affirmatively authorizes service by mail. Article 10(a) simply provides that, as long as the receiving state does not object, the Convention does not “interfere with . . . the freedom” to serve documents through postal channels. In other words, in cases governed by the Hague Service Convention, service by mail is permissible if two conditions are met: first, the receiving state has not objected to service by mail; and second, service by mail is authorized under otherwise-applicable law. See Brockmeyer, 383 F. 3d, at 803–804.

Secondary sources: B. Ristau, International Judicial Assistance §4–1–4(2), p. 112 (1990 rev. ed.); Hague Conference on Private Int’l Law, Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Service Convention ¶279, p. 91 (4th ed. 2016).

(U.S.S.C., May 22, 2017, Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, Docket 16-254, J. Alito. All other Members joined, except J. Gorsuch, who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case).

Notifications à l'étranger. La notification par poste peut être admise. Application de la Convention de La Haye.

L'affaire débute devant une cour de l'état du Texas. La demande est signifiée par voie postale à la défenderesse, laquelle réside au Canada. Elle ne dépose pas de réponse et ne comparaît pas. Un jugement par défaut est rendu en faveur du demandeur. La défenderesse dépose une demande de relief, invoquant une notification affectée d'un vice. La demande de relief est rejetée.

La Cour juge en l'espèce que la Convention de La Haye permet une notification directe et par poste à une partie, pour autant que l'état de dite partie permette une telle notification. Le Département d'état s'est prononcé dans le même sens. Encore faut-il que l'état du for le permette aussi, car la Convention se limite à prévoir qu'elle n'interfère pas avec une notification postale si l'état du défendeur permet l'usage de la voie postale.

Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, Docket 16-348

Debt collection: Statute of limitations: Unfair collection:

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 91 Stat. 874, 15 U. S. C. §1692 et seq., prohibits a debt collector from asserting any “false, deceptive, or misleading representation,” or using any “unfair or unconscionable means” to collect, or attempt to collect, a debt, §§1692e, 1692f.

(…) Whether Midland’s assertion of an obviously time-barred claim is “unfair” or “unconscionable” (within the terms of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) presents a closer question. First, Johnson points out that several lower courts have found or indicated that, in the context of an ordinary civil action to collect a debt, a debt collector’s assertion of a claim known to be time barred is “unfair.” See, e.g., Phillips v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 736 F. 3d 1076, 1079 (CA7 2013) (holding as much); Kimber v. Federal Financial Corp., 668 F. Supp. 1480, 1487 (MD Ala. 1987) (same); Huertas v. Galaxy Asset Management, 641 F. 3d 28, 32–33 (CA3 2011) (indicating as much); Castro v. Collecto, Inc., 634 F. 3d 779, 783 (CA5 2011) (same); Freyermuth v. Credit Bureau Servs., Inc., 248 F. 3d 767, 771 (CA8 2001) (same).

We are not convinced, however, by this precedent. It considers a debt collector’s assertion in a civil suit of a claim known to be stale. We assume, for argument’s sake, that the precedent is correct in that context (a matter this Court itself has not decided and does not now decide). But the context of a civil suit differs significantly from the present context, that of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding. The lower courts rested their conclusions upon their concern that a consumer might unwittingly repay a time-barred debt. Thus the Seventh Circuit pointed out that “few unsophisticated consumers would be aware that a statute of limitations could be used to defend against lawsuits based on stale debts.” Phillips, supra, at 1079 (quoting Kimber, supra, at 1487). The “passage of time,” the Circuit wrote, “dulls the consumer’s memory of the circumstances and validity of the debt” and the consumer may no longer have “personal records.” 736 F. 3d, at 1079 (quoting Kimber, supra, at 1487). Moreover, a consumer might pay a stale debt simply to avoid the cost and embarrassment of suit. 736 F. 3d, at 1079.

(U.S.S.C., May 15, 2017, Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, Docket 16-348, J. Breyer).

Poursuivre une créance prescrite peut être déloyal et contrevenir à la loi fédérale sur le recouvrement équitable des créances (15 U. S. C. §1692 et seq.). Cette jurisprudence ne semble toutefois s'appliquer qu'aux sociétés de recouvrement qui ne sont pas titulaires originaires de la créance.

International Competition Network (ICN), new recommended practices

Antitrust: Competition: Market studies: ICN:

At its annual meeting, the International Competition Network (ICN) adopted new recommended practices for merger review, addressing notification thresholds, remedies, and efficiencies; a framework for analyzing unilateral conduct; guiding principles for market studies; and a report on setting cartel fines, the Federal Trade Commission announced today.

The Advocacy Working Group provides guidance and facilitates experience sharing to improve the effectiveness of ICN members’ competition advocacy. This year, the group created new Market Studies Guiding Principles, a compilation of effective practices for agencies to consider when undertaking studies to understand the state of competition in specific sectors. It also expanded its “Explaining the Benefits of Competition” resources to include tips, messages, and case studies on communicating with the public.

May 12, 2017, FTC, Press release: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/05/international-competition-network-adopts-recommended-practices?utm_source=govdelivery

Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc., S224611

Labor law in California: Wage and hour claims: Conditions of labor:

The provisions of the Labor Code are not to be construed in isolation, but in harmony with a second set of rules governing employment. The Legislature established the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) a century ago to regulate and protect the working conditions of women and minors. (Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35, 54–55.) The IWC carried out that mission by adopting a series of wage orders, quasi-legislative enactments establishing minimum wages, maximum work hours, and conditions of labor. (Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 1, 10; accord, Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1026.) As a result, wage and hour claims are today governed by two complementary and occasionally overlapping sources of authority: the provisions of the Labor Code, enacted by the Legislature, and a series of 18 wage orders, adopted by the IWC. (Brinker Restaurant Corp., at p. 1026.)

Our role in interpreting the IWC wage orders and reconciling them with the Labor Code is settled: The IWC‘s wage orders are to be accorded the same dignity as statutes. They are presumptively valid legislative regulations of the employment relationship, regulations that must be given independent effect separate and apart from any statutory enactments. To the extent a wage order and a statute overlap, we will seek to harmonize them, as we would with any two statutes. (Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1027.)

In 1976, (…) the Legislature expanded the IWC‘s jurisdiction to include adult men (see California Hotel & Motel Assn. v. Industrial Welfare Com. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 200, 207).

(Cal. S.C., May 8, 2017, Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc., S224611).

Le droit du travail californien a sa source principale dans le Code du travail, mais, surtout s'agissant des questions d'heures de travail et de temps de travail, il s'agit de consulter également les ordonnances rendues par l'Industrial Welfare Commission, qui ont pour ainsi dire la même valeur que les lois au sens formel promulguées par le législateur de l'état. Ces ordonnances régissaient d'abord les conditions de travail des femmes et des mineurs. Depuis 1976, elles s'appliquent également aux hommes majeurs.

Lewis v. Clarke, Docket 15-1500

Immunity (personal): Sovereign immunity: Indian tribe: Eleventh Amendment: Real party in interest: Common law: Indemnification provision: Bivens:

This case presents an ordinary negligence action brought against a tribal em­ployee in state court under state law. We granted certio­rari to resolve whether an Indian tribe’s sovereign immu­nity bars individual-capacity damages actions against tribal employees for torts committed within the scope of their employment and for which the employees are indemnified by the tribe.

Two issues require our resolution: (1) whether the sov­ereign immunity of an Indian tribe bars individual-capacity damages against tribal employees for torts com­mitted within the scope of their employment; and (2) what role, if any, a tribe’s decision to indemnify its employees plays in this analysis.

Our cases establish that, in the context of lawsuits against state and federal employees or entities, courts should look to whether the sovereign is the real party in interest to determine whether sovereign immunity bars the suit. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U. S. 21, 25 (1991). (…) Must determine in the first instance whether the remedy sought is truly against the sovereign. (…) If, for example, an action is in essence against a State even if the State is not a named party, then the State is the real party in interest and is entitled to invoke the Eleventh Amend­ment’s protection. For this reason, an arm or instrumen­tality of the State generally enjoys the same immunity as the sovereign itself. E.g., Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U. S. 425, 429–430 (1997). Similarly, lawsuits brought against employees in their official capacity “repre­sent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent,” and they may also be barred by sovereign immunity. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U. S. 159, 165–166 (1985).

“Personal-capacity suits, on the other hand, seek to impose individual liability upon a govern­ment officer for actions taken under color of state law.” Hafer, 502 U. S., at 25. (…) See also id., at 27–31 (discharged employees entitled to bring personal damages action against state auditor general); cf. Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971). “Officers sued in their personal capacity come to court as individuals,” Hafer, 502 U. S., at 27, and the real party in interest is the individual, not the sovereign.

Defendants in an official-capacity action may assert sovereign immunity. Graham, 473 U. S., at 167. An officer in an individual-capacity action, on the other hand, may be able to assert personal immunity defenses, such as, for example, absolute prose­cutorial immunity in certain circumstances. Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U. S. 335, 342–344 (2009). But sovereign immunity “does not erect a barrier against suits to impose individual and personal liability.” Hafer, 502 U. S., at 30– 31; see Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 757 (1996).

There is no reason to depart from these general rules in the context of tribal sovereign immunity. It is apparent that these general principles foreclose Clarke’s sovereign immunity defense in this case. This is a negligence action arising from a tort committed by Clarke on an interstate highway within the State of Connecticut. The suit is brought against a tribal employee operating a vehicle within the scope of his employment but on state lands, and the judgment will not operate against the Tribe. This is not a suit against Clarke in his official capacity. It is simply a suit against Clarke to recover for his personal actions, which “will not require action by the sovereign or disturb the sovereign’s property.” Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U. S. 682, 687 (1949). We are cognizant of the Supreme Court of Connecticut’s con­cern that plaintiffs not circumvent tribal sovereign im­munity. But here, that immunity is simply not in play. Clarke, not the Gaming Authority, is the real party in interest.

In ruling that Clarke was immune from this suit solely because he was acting within the scope of his employment, the court extended sovereign immunity for tribal employ­ees beyond what common-law sovereign immunity princi­ples would recognize for either state or federal employees. See, e.g., Graham, 473 U. S., at 167–168. The protection offered by tribal sovereign immunity here is no broader than the protection offered by state or federal sovereign immunity.

There are, of course, personal immunity defenses distinct from sov­ereign immunity. E.g., Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 811–815 (1982). Clarke argues for the first time before this Court that one particular form of personal immunity is available to him here—official immunity. See Westfall v. Erwin, 484 U. S. 292, 295–297 (1988). That defense is not properly before us now, however, given that Clarke’s motion to dismiss was based solely on tribal sovereign immunity. See Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 549 U. S. 443, 455 (2007).

The conclusion above notwithstanding, Clarke argues that the Gaming Authority is the real party in interest here because it is required by Mohegan Tribe Code §4–52 to indemnify Clarke for any adverse judgment. We have never before had occasion to decide whether an indemnification clause is sufficient to extend a sovereign immunity defense to a suit against an employee in his individual capacity. We hold that an indemnification provision cannot, as a matter of law, extend sovereign immunity to individual employees who would otherwise not fall under its protective cloak.

Indeed, we have applied these same princi­ples to a different question before—whether a state in­strumentality may invoke the State’s immunity from suit even when the Federal Government has agreed to indem­nify that instrumentality against adverse judgments. In Regents of Univ. of Cal., an individual brought suit against the University of California, a public university of the State of California, for breach of contract related to his employ­ment at a laboratory operated by the university pursuant to a contract with the Federal Government. We held that the indemnification provision did not divest the state instrumentality of Eleventh Amendment immunity. 519 U. S., at 426. Our analysis turned on where the potential legal liability lay, not from whence the money to pay the damages award ultimately came. Because the lawsuit bound the university, we held, the Eleventh Amendment applied to the litigation even though the damages award would ultimately be paid by the federal Department of Energy. Id., at 429–431. Our reasoning remains the same. The critical inquiry is who may be legally bound by the court’s adverse judgment, not who will ultimately pick up the tab.

Here, the Connecticut courts exercise no jurisdiction over the Tribe or the Gaming Authority, and their judg­ments will not bind the Tribe or its instrumentalities in any way. The Tribe’s indemnification provision does not somehow convert the suit against Clarke into a suit against the sovereign; when Clarke is sued in his individ­ual capacity, he is held responsible only for his individual wrongdoing. Moreover, indemnification is not a certainty here. Clarke will not be indemnified by the Gaming Au­thority should it determine that he engaged in “wanton, reckless, or malicious” activity. Mohegan Tribe Code §4– 52.

((…) The concern that originally drove the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment—the protection of the States against involuntary liability. See Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation, 513 U. S. 30, 39, 48 (1994)).

Secondary sources: M. Fawcett, The Lasting of the Mohegans 7, 11–13 (1995); Native Hawaiian Law: A Treatise 303–324 (M. MacKenzie ed. 2015); F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law §§1.01–1.07 (2012 and Supp. 2015); V. Deloria & R. DeMallie, Documents of American Indian Diplomacy: Treaties, Agreements, and Conventions, 1775–1979 (1999).

(U.S.S.C., April 25, 2017, Lewis v. Clarke, Docket 15-1500, J. Sotomayor).

Immunité des employés publics, des employés d'institutions apparentées au secteur public, et des membres des Tribus indiennes, Onzième Amendement :

La présente espèce naît d'un cas de responsabilité civile ordinaire porté devant une cour d'un état, et non fédérale. Le droit applicable est celui de l'état du for. La partie défenderesse est membre d'une Tribu indienne reconnue par l'autorité fédérale. L'immunité dont bénéficie les Tribus indiennes prohibe-t-elle une action en dommages-intérêts dirigée contre un des membres de la Tribu, fondée sur un acte illicite commis dans l'exercice de son travail pour la Tribu, et pour lequel il sera indemnisé par dite Tribu ?

Selon la jurisprudence, dans le contexte de procédures contre des employés ou des entités de l'état ou fédéraux, les Tribunaux doivent établir si le souverain est la partie réellement intéressée ("real party in interest"), cela aux fins de juger si l'immunité prohibe l'action en justice au sens du Onzième Amendement. En particulier s'agit-il de déterminer si les conclusions sont en finalité dirigées contre le souverain, même s'il n'est pas en tant que tel partie au procès. Diverses institutions liées à l'entité publique peuvent invoquer l'immunité (par exemple une caisse-maladie dans le système Medicare). De la sorte, une action dirigée contre un employé public, fondée sur un acte relevant de ses fonctions, représente une autre manière d'agir directement contre l'entité publique. Une telle action peut être prohibée par le principe d'immunité.

Par contraste, une action dirigée contre l'employé public et nullement contre l'entité publique vise à le faire condamner pour un acte (illicite) commis prétendument dans le cadre de ses fonctions et prétendument selon la loi (cf. la jurisprudence Bivens bien connue). Ici, le real party in interest est l'employé à titre personnel, et non le souverain.

(Le défendeur dispose aussi de la possibilité d'invoquer une immunité dont il bénéficie peut-être à titre personnel, comme l'immunité de l'accusateur public en droit pénal).

Ces principes s'appliquent également dans le contexte de l'immunité au bénéfice des Tribus indiennes. En l'espèce, il est apparent qu'ils ne permettent pas à C. d'invoquer son immunité découlant de sa qualité de membre d'une Tribu indienne. La présente affaire est un cas de responsabilité civile découlant d'un accident de circulation survenu dans l'état du Connecticut (et non dans le territoire de la Tribu). Que le défendeur conduisît pour le compte de son employeur, la Tribu, ne lui est d'aucun secours. Le jugement en RC ne sera pas opposable à la Tribu. C., et non l'entité tribale, est le "real party in interest". La procédure n'est pas dirigée contre C. en sa qualité de membre et d'employé de la Tribu. Elle est dirigée contre C. et contre lui seul.

La protection offerte par l'immunité des Tribus n'est ici pas plus étendue que la protection offerte par l'immunité en faveur des états ou en faveur de l'autorité fédérale.

Par ailleurs, dans le cas où la loi (ici tribale) permet l'indemnisation de la partie responsable, il n'en découle nullement une extension de l'immunité de l'entité qui indemnise en faveur de la personne indemnisée (cette dernière étant recherchée personnellement en responsabilité, comme en l'espèce). Ce principe peut s'appliquer dans un autre contexte, tel celui de savoir si une instrumentalité de l'état peut encore invoquer l'immunité de l'état quand le Gouvernement fédéral a promis d'indemniser dite instrumentalité en cas de jugement défavorable : la jurisprudence Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U. S. 425, 429–430 (1997) est illustrative : une personne physique agit contre l'Université de Californie, une Université publique, pour violation contractuelle fondée sur un contrat de travail, l'activité ayant lieu dans un laboratoire de l'Université, et la partie employeur de ce contrat de travail étant non pas l'Université mais le Gouvernement fédéral. La Cour a jugé dans cette affaire que la disposition d'indemnisation ne privait pas l'Université de son immunité découlant du Onzième Amendement. Ainsi, en la matière, le critère décisif est de savoir qui sera juridiquement tenu par le jugement défavorable, et non qui finalement règlera compte au plan financier.

En l'espèce, les deux instances précédentes de l'état du Connecticut n'exercent aucune compétence envers la Tribu indienne. Leurs Jugements n'engageront nullement la Tribu. La disposition d'indemnisation n'implique pas conversion de l'action contre C. en une action contre la Tribu.

(L'adoption du Onzième Amendement était motivée par le souci d'éviter d'engager la responsabilité de l'état hors des cas prévus par la loi).